Don’t tell that to
Chilton’s or Haynes. They publish manuals describing how to do a variety of repairs on your car. Yet, we still allow such discussions, even though their very livelihood depends on people not knowing how to repair their cars.
If someone on these boards has learned how to do a magic trick, they should be allowed to share that knowledge just like the guy who can change a flat tire, cook a beef wellington, or do a cash flow analysis.
Correction: Mr. Dickson quoted the chapter from a book in which it was published. Not the first, or the only, book in which that trick has been published under that name.
Agreed. And you had no reason to believe that the Web site in my link was infringing that (or any other) copyright, nor would a simple link from this site to that one have put SDMB at risk, even if it were. Furthermore, Trigonal Planar’s description was almost certainly in his own words, and thus not a violation of copyright by your own admission.
Although Hampshire’s statement certainly resembles those of people seeking to violate someone’s copyright, the better analogy is someone who wants to get a free government publication for free, instead of buying it from a company that resells them at a profit. The fact that someone is selling his copyrighted expression of information that is widely known does not preclude others from giving away the same information (in a different expression, of course) if they choose. And seeking the free form instead of the costly form is not unfair, unethical, or illegal. It’s just being smart.
Whether Hampshire knew it was available in copyrighted form or not, whether he intended us to violate copyright or not, it was entirely possible to answer his request in a manner that did not violate copyright, which is what Trigonal Planar and I did.
Sorry. Perhaps I should have worded it that way. I closed the original thread as a precaution, and wrote to ianzin asking for more info. If he were unable to demonstrate that this was a violation of copyright or other law, I probably would have reopened the thread.
I received a response from ianzin that explained his position. As it was contrary to the popular opinion expressed in this thread, I emailed the mods and admins asking for their advice on the matter, since I personally did not have any verifiable information on the subject.
It was then concluded that we would rather not permit the revelation of the magic trick in question for reasons including, but not limited, to:
“There are people who own the right to sell the instructions to this trick. The rights to publish specific tricks like this are bought and paid for by magic dealers, just like any other copyright intellectual property.”
Abb Dickson’s response on the subject, which corroborated ianzin’s stand.
Abb Dickson informing us that there have been lawsuits challenging, often successfully, the publishing of such information. This alone would be reason enough for the SDMB to not permit such information. Please understand that if the SDMB faces any such legal action, it would be closed down immediately. This is our first and foremost concern as mods. Please understand that decisions to delete information and close threads are taken solely in the interest of the boards.
While it may be argued that offering such instructions in one’s own words do not infringe upon any rights, we’d rather not challenge the boundaries of what may or may not be legally permitted.
-xash
General Questions Moderator
Perhaps I can try to respond to some of the point made here.
x-ray vision said “This is a forum for sharing knowledge.” You can only share information, not knowledge. Yes, this is a forum for sharing information and fighting ignorance, but we all accept that this has to be done within certain rules and policies, such as not sharing information about how to break the law. So the question is about what these rules are, or shuld be, with regard to the workings of a magic trick.
“If that offends anyone as a magician that’s too bad”. No-one has suggested that the issue here is whether or not I or any other magician is ‘offended’.
“Anyone can share how a trick is done and its totally legal”. It is most definitely not always legal, all the time. If a magician has taken the appropriate steps to legally protect his intellectual property rights, then it is not the case that anyone can violate those rights on a whim. And various magicians, have, in fact, done this from time to time. To take another example, the staff who work with Copperfield all have legally-binding contracts which prevents them for revealing any secrets.
“Books are published… explaining how various tricks are done”. Yes, they are. The authors of those books, and the people who have purchased the rights to exploit them commercially, may divulge the information in them. No-one else has the right to do so. And in any case, you are not comparing like with like. This is about people divulging magic secrets on a public forum without paying the people who either originated the trick or who have the right to exploit it for profit.
stuyguy said “I think Ianzin will find that magic tricks qualify as trade secrets, not intellectual property”. No, I will not, because this is incorrect. If a magician invents a trick and publishes a book containing the details of that trick, then this is his intellectual property and he has the right to exploit it commercially, give it away free or do whatever else he wants. No-one has that right unless it is conferred by the originator.
Johnny Bravo paraphrases a source thus “The article states that a magician’s best and only true protection is secrecy. There doesn’t seem to be any law explicitly protecting magic tricks”. That source isn’t necessarily the only view or a definitive view, however convenient it may be to cite it. Secondly, it is not a technical discussion of copyright or intellectual property rights; the thrust of the article is simply to suggest that if a magician wants to keep his secrets secret, the only sure-fire way is not to share them with anyone else. I agree there isn’t a law which refers to magic tricks explicitly. I have never claimed there is, nor would I expect there to be. The issue here is of a poster using the SDMB to try and obtain, without paying, information which other people (the originator or the legal re-seller) have the right to exploit commercially, and of the legal and ethical questions which arise from this action.
Khadaji said there should be a way to show that this (the information in question) has been copyrighted. Michael Ammar is an excellent teacher of magic, and he sells very good books and DVDs to the magic fraternity. He gave the name ‘Crazy Man’s Handcuffs’ to this trick, and he wrote what are generally considered to be the best instructions about how to do it, both as a chapter in one of his books and as a separate stand-alone booklet available from magic dealers; these instructions included his own refinements and touches to improve the trick. All his work is, of course, copyright material.
x-ray vision added another post saying “if I catch how a magician does a trick and I yell aloud…” etc. I don’t believe this post demonstrates a grasp of the issues involved here. I repeat, it is not about what people may or may not do in a live performance. It is about a poster using the SDMB to try and obtain, without paying, information which other people (the originator or the legal re-seller) have the right to exploit commercially, and of the legal and ethical questions which arise from this action.
ftg posted about the main forms of IP protection, and I welcome his post. Some magic tricks are protected by patent. It’s true that anyone who wishes to do so can consult the patent. This is not the issue here, which is about a poster using the SDMB… etc., as I have already explained twice. Incidentally, some magic tricks are protected in other ways not covered by ftg’s post. Teller’s ‘Shadow Rose’ illusion is registered as a dramatic work, a play, so that others cannot perform it.
ftg goes on to say that I fail to impress him. This is okay. It’s not my role or pre-occupation to try and impress him or anyone else. It is also irrelevant to the point at issue. He adds, “So stop whining, develop new tricks.” Magicians already do that which you suggest. We are develping new material all the time.
pulykamell points out that many magic tricks are published in library books or on the internet. I agree. So what? I have no problem with someone who has a genuine interest taking the time to go to a library and consult a book. That book is made available for lending via the library system which, as we know, involves some degree of recompense to the author and publisher i.e. it is a legal way of making information available to those who want to take the trouble to access it. As for internet sites, some do publish magic secrets but do so without violating intellectual property rights (e.g. contributors explain their own work). There are none which, for example, copy Michael Ammar’s work and make it available for free - or at least none which have the right to do so.
Trigonal Planar said “The trick in question is sleight of hand in the truest sense. There’s absolutely no trickery to it”. I have no idea what ‘in the truest sense’ is supposed to mean here, and I doubt Trigonal has either. Moreover, the second part contradicts the first. Sleight of hand is a form of trickery. Perhaps Trigonal just doesn’t understand what he’s talking about.
Hampshire said he didn’t think a bar trick he’s seen in books was intellectual property owned by anyone. First of all, what he ‘thinks’ isn’t the point. A shoplifter might ‘think’ he has the right to steal DVDs, but that doesn’t make it so. Yes, he can go back to a book store and read a book. This is about whether anyone can come on the SDMB and ask how a magic trick is done and be told, even when that information is something other people own the right to exploit commercially.
Just digressing from the point at issue for a moment, he also said, “My interest in learning tricks is so I can… show them how it’s done”. Needless to say, I don’t welcome this attitude. Not only does he want to get this information for free via the Boards, but he also wants to give it away to anyone whom he chooses. Assuming he ever creates any intellectual property of his own, he may feel differently about people with this attitude.
pulykamell returns with the point that the core secret of a trick is only part of what makes a good magical performance. This is true, but irrelevant to the point at issue. He also says anyone can visit a library and read a magic book. Also true. Also irrelevant. If people want to make the effort to visit a library and study the noble art, then fine. That’s one part of how I started! I think this is different from someone wanting to just sit at home, bang off a question to the SDMB and get an answer.
NotQuiteAYinzer invokes a comparison with PHP. He states that magicians are paid for knowing what to do with a magic secret, not for the secret itself. I think this comparison is inaccurate and unfair, but I won’t go into a longer discussion here because I don’t think it’s a relevant point. For the last time, this is about using the SDMB to try and obtain, without paying, information which other people (the originator or the legal re-seller) have the right to exploit commercially, and of the legal and ethical questions which arise from this action.
All the other posters rehash points already dealt with above.
ianzin, is Michael Ammar the originator of this particular trick? Please demonstrate that he has intellectual property rights to anything other than his own writings on the subject.
All of what you have said completely fails to demonstrate that the restatement of this particular trick in one’s own words is a either a legal or an ethical problem.
It’s evident that the final answer from the moderators is “we won’t let this be posted for fear that we would be sued,” so I’m going to give up trying to discuss it with them.
However, ianzin, since you obviously feel the information shouldn’t be posted here, perhaps you can answer for me:
If I already know how the trick is done, why can’t I explain it in my own words? You’ve said it’s because others have “the right to exploit it commercially.” But I have the right to exploit my own knowledge commercially. I know how to juggle, so I could write a book on juggling, thereby exploiting my knowledge commercially. However, I couldn’t stop someone else from going on the internet and posting an explanation of how to juggle for free, even though this may interfere with my business. I could stop them from reproducing passages of my book if it’s copyright, but not from reproducing the ideas, because I don’t own the ideas.
It seems what you are saying is that the authors who have published this trick have an exclusive right to exploit it commercially, and others cannot release the information either for commercial gain or free of charge. In other words, it seems to me that you are saying they own the knowledge behind this trick, not just their description of the trick. This seems to be a very strong claim, and I don’t find it clear what you’re basing it on. Can you cite copyright law, or a specific case, or some other legal document that indicates that a magician may own the idea behind a trick, not just the rights to his explanation of it?
Does he have any specific cases dealing with the issue at hand?
Even for a trick as widely known as this one? This isn’t some magician’s masterpiece, its something that anyone can find in five seconds on Google and teach to themself with just a bit of practice.
It’s not as if it even matters if we tell, as anyone who wants can easily find out how it’s done. What angers me is the principle of the thing. Can you imagine if everytime someone posted something that a person might not want people to know, that person came on here and started threatening to sue?
This is what seems to have the SDMB management spooked. Fine. But before we all go running scared, I suggest we ask Mr. Dickson for more details.
I strongly suspect that the successful lawsuits he alludes to have be won for breech of contract (say, Copperfield’s assistant blabbed after he signed a contract not to), author copyright (say, someone c&p’ed a page out of someone else’s how-to magic book), or patent infringement of an invention (say, someone built their own “disappearing tiger box” after a trip to the patent office).
None of those types of “successful lawsuits” deal with the situation presented here on the SDMB.
Like others before me, I would like to see Mr. Dickson’s cites. Perhaps the best known recent case, against the “Masked Magician,” who revealed several well-known illusions on Fox TV in 1997 and 1998, was thrown out last year: cite..
Furthermore, it strikes me as highly unlikely that anyone would sue over a small sleight of hand trick, that, as we have shown, is available from multiple sources at little or no cost.
ianzin carefully dances around the IP issue, using the magician’s traditional tool – misdirection – to try to persuade us that what was requested in the OP of the other thread, and provided by myself and Trigonal Planar, was either illegal or unethical. He implies that Michael Ammar holds some special right to the trick, and that others have licensed the trick from him, or in some other fashion have a “right” to the trick that the rest of us do not.
But a quick Web search turns up more than half a dozen sites selling different versions of the “Crazy Man’s Hand Cuffs” trick in printed or video form, and some, like the first one I linked to, that describe it without charge. In fact, this site claims the effect was invented by one Arthur Setterington.
Mr. Ammar (or Arthur Setterington, or Dan Harlan, or Herb Zarrow, or Dan Turcotte, or ianzin himself) may have a superior method of performing the trick, and they certainly have the right to sell their descriptions to anyone willing to pay.
But none of them has (or can possibly have) a patent, copyright, or any other legal right to the trick itself, exclusive of a specific expression of it, nor can they legally prevent anyone from giving away his own specific expression of the trick, despite what ianzin and Mr. Dickson would like us to believe.
ianzin complains about the OP’s attitude:
So who gets to choose who will be a magician, ianzin? You? Michael Ammar? The owners of magic shops? Librarians? Magicians have this mythos that one has to be initiated into the “brotherhood” of magic, but as we can see from ianzin’s post, the real initiation rite is spending money. You’re not “one of us” unless you’ve paid to join, like we have. This is the crux of the magician’s code of “ethics.”
I’m sorry, but in my book, the fact that giving away (non-copyrighted) information may harm the economic interests of some magicians, shop owners, or publishers (and this is far from having been proven) does not make it illegal or even unethical.
Needless to say, I feel that SDMB is being unduly influenced by the baseless arguments of two individuals, and faces no more risk in publishing members’ original descriptions of simple magic tricks than in publishing recipes or tips for fixing cars.
Dear Straight Dope Message Board Administration:
Please close (well actually, you’d better delete since they’ve been answered) the following threads:
Catch a bullet with the teeth
(http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=253941&highlight=magic+trick)
“Bar Tricks”
(http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=166038&highlight=magic+trick)
(http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=130912&highlight=magic+trick)
Penn & Teller
(http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=159171&highlight=magic+trick)
Card Tricks:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=141552&highlight=magic+trick
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=43044&highlight=magic+trick
Dollar Bill Tricks:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=43045&highlight=magic+trick
Mind Trick:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=38737&highlight=magic+trick
Bending Spoon:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=106677&highlight=magic+trick
Making Big Things Disappear:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=48159&highlight=magic+trick
David Blaine & Levitation:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=188009&highlight=magic+trick
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=172733&highlight=magic+trick
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=153730&highlight=magic+trick
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=116867&highlight=magic+trick
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=51643&highlight=magic+trick
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=52441&highlight=magic+trick
David Copperfield’s Flying trick:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=45393&highlight=magic+trick
David Copperfield’s Saw Trick:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=52617&highlight=magic+trick
Rubber Band Trick:
(you’ve already got this one covered)
Oh, and you’d probably want to delete these articles by Cecil Adams as well:
How did Uri Geller bend spoons?
How did David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty vanish?
Indian Rope Trick and Bed of Nails
and just to be safe How does a Ouija board work?
Of course, if you are unwilling to close/delete these previous threads and articles, you must explain how they differ from the thread in question. Keep in mind that many of these explanations contain explicit reference to the assumed Intellectual Property owner (i.e. Copperfield, Blaine, Penn & Teller). If you still are unwilling to close all these previous threads, please check with Abb Dickson for his thoughts on the legality of posting explanations of David Copperfield’s tricks. I have a feeling I know what he’d say…
I see the thread drift further and futher away from the baliwick of GQ, but I really feel the need to stomp this one down:
No. No, it isn’t. I have performed professionally. I have known many magicians. While I’m sure some may take the mercenary tack you see, I have never met a magician who felt that way.
The point of not revealing the secrets is that many feel that the full disclosure of magicians’ secrets by the general public leads to the loss of, well, the “magic” of magic performances. Yes, it’s all trickery. No, it’s not accomplished by some sort of otherworldly techniques. But there’s something to be said for seeing a performance and being completely stupefied by what’s accomplished onstage.
I personally don’t think it’s all a big deal if some folks learn how to do these things. Some people open up a book and read the last chapter. Some people crack open a calendar and immediately turn to December. If some folks find out how to do some tricks, more power to them; maybe that will turn them on to performing magic themselves. But geez people, can you blame magicians from wanting to avoid having all the enjoyment sucked out of the art they love?
Your not alone. I am beginning to think this board should be called “fighting the fight against ignorance since Napster, we have all the time in the world”.
This was not a I.P. issue, and should be allowed, just like the thread of the plumber who fixed the clogged kitchen drain by turning on the dishwasher. IT is the plumbers living to know how tofix a simple kitchen clog but it was allowed here. I’m sure it is in some book somewhere too.
This is just beyond the pail and the mods are reaching to cover their backsides.
Whoa, didn’t see this in GQ, I don’t think I would have posted so strongly if I knew that ahead of time. But since it’s there already, please accept my regrets of contaminating this thread, but also realize that members are sort of upset with when then perceive as a almost fanatic response to what might just be a violation of I.P. rights, in a parallel universe, when the moon is full, and …(ok this time I knew it was in GQ, so I stopped)
I seem to think that ianzin has a personal stake in this. Are you an illusionist? All of your counterpoints seem to revolve around who has the right to commercially exploit information.
The thing is, information isn’t copyrightable. No one has an exclusive right to knowledge.
Here are some examples of protections that are valid on the USA. It’s not all inclusive:
Copyright - verbatim reproductions This covers printed matter, recordings, digital information. The copyright holder can prevent verbatim reproductions. Unless someone makes direct copy from a copyrighted source, this just doesn’t apply to any magic trick in existance. Copyright does not inhibit my ability to paraphrase. This gives me the right to convey any information that I want for any purpose, unless explicitely prohibited by law (e.g., how to build a nuclear bomb).
Copyright - performance As you mentioned, Teller’s “Shadow Rose” trick could be copyrighted (I don’t know this, but I’ll assume you’re correct). This validly prevents me from performing the trick without royalties for commercial gain. Kind of like not being able to sing “Happy Birthday” at a restaurant. But there’s nothing in the copyright provision that prevents its fair use, such as me demonstrating it to a friend. There’s additionally absolutely nothing preventing anyone from disseminating the information – the copyright is only for public performance.
Intellectual property – everything’s intellectual property. There’s no legal protection for intellectual property. It’s up to you to either (a) maintain it as a secret, or (b) protect via the patent and trademark system. Any not so protected is public domain.
Trade secrets – Again, what’s a trade secret, and what’s the legal theory that protects a trade secret? There is none! Again your only protection is the trademark and patent system. There are court cases, though, that establish that a company that benefits from someone’s breaking an NDA are liable as if they broke the NDA, but the liability is only affected by any commercial advantage that was taken – no harm, no foul. You all know that DeCSS is now finally legal; not because of any inherent rights, but because there’s nothing that protected it legally from reverse engineering.
Patent - design Ah ha. This is what lets Apple patent the design of their wire wastebasket in OS X. It doesn’t protect the metaphor, but rather this particular image. I can’t really think of an application of this towards telling a magician’s secret, though.
Patent - utility This is about the only thing that a magician could pull to prevent others from performing his trick. Of course this makes the method behind the trick public information. Information, as we know, is public domain. So even if the trick were patented, we’d have the right to know how it were done, even if we couldn’t commercially exploit it. I’ve not looked at the P&TM site, but I’m positive that there are magic tricks or magic apparatus registered there. And it wouldn’t be illegal not unethical to post about them or link to them.
Non-disclosure agreements (NDA’s) This is something founded in contract law and not copyright and trademark law. This means that a magician, to preserve his secret, can make his assistant or whomever sign an NDA. If the person violates the NDA, it’s just too bad for the magician for not having protected his secret with a patent. Although, as mentioned above, if the NDA violator makes the trade secret available only to another company for commercial gain, then the other company (other magician) could possibly be held liable. If the information is released publicly, then it’s public domain. Information is free/gratis. Again, in a non-criminal sense, the NDA violator can be subject to a lawsuit.
This one for the mods: can I offer civil indemnity to the SDMB for the purpose of allowing a single, offsite link to a free webpage that describes in the authors’ own words how this original magic trick is done? Fax me the paperwork. I’ll risk the lawsuit. How much can the damages possibly be?
Moved to the Pit.
-xash
General Questions Moderator
Okay, I consider myself well and truly stomped, and I apologize for slandering those magicians, like yourself, who don’t take that mercenary tack. But I still think that magicians’ concerns over the damage that will be done if secrets are revealed are waaaaay overblown.
Huh? Is this so that we can curse you and TubaDiva for failing to admit that you got some bad advice, over-reacted, and made a mistake?
Soul of propriety that I am, I feel no need to do so, but I don’t think an apology would be out of line.
commasense, a few of your points in Post#50 are well taken.
I shall discuss all the points raised in this thread with the mods and admins and post an update in this thread. This might take time, so kindly bear with me.
Please understand that we have no personal interest in witholding information from our members.
We made a decision that we believe was in the interest of the boards, and you are questioning it. This is your right. Your arguements shall be considered by the administration, and reversing our decision remains a possibility in light of new information. I would gladly invite facts that could help the administration make a more informed decision.
Although this thread has been moved to the Pit, I would appreciate a civil discussion.
Thank you for your understanding.
-xash
General Questions Moderator
I forsee myself getting banned for questioning the moderators too much, but… wouldn’t GD maybe be a little better, since the Pit is an invitation to become nasty…